Posted on 05/20/2004 10:06:34 PM PDT by churchillbuff
Four decades separate the war in the jungle from the war in the desert, yet the current president from Texas sounds eerily similar to another president from Texas.
George W. Bush says, "Now is the time, and Iraq is the place." Lyndon B. Johnson said, "The time is now, and the place is Vietnam." Bush says, "Bring 'em on." Johnson said, "Nail the coonskin to the wall."
Bush says, "We are fighting that enemy in Iraq... so that we do not meet him again on our own streets, in our own cities." Johnson said, "If we quit Vietnam, tomorrow we'll be fighting in Hawaii, and next week we'll have to fight in San Francisco."
(Excerpt) Read more at thestate.com ...
Your message comes directly from the DNC and the leftist media. It has nothing to do with reality. You might try reading post #6 again, or for once if you missed it. Them's the facts!
I think you'd agree that had Saddam possessed the WMDs we thought he had, he would have been a threat to the US and the war would have been justified.
But to say Saddam had no WMD is arguing from hindsight. Nearly every intelligence agency in the world believed he had WMD. The UN Security Council itself believed he had WMD -- it imposed a sanctions regime on Iraq and passed no fewer than 17 resolutions in the 13 years following the Gulf War because Saddam wasn't coming clean on WMD.
Were you one of the few who was *absolutely* certain before the war that Saddam never, or no longer, possessed WMD? If so, on what evidence did you base your belief? He had WMD in the past, it was documented by the UN, he even admitted to it, and never provided a shred of evidence that his WMD had been destroyed.
Yes, but there were weapons inspectors who said they couldn't find any, and needed more time. (I know that many laughed and ridiculed them, but now the US says it can't find them either). So, the weapons inspectors could have been given the time they asked for - - which I advocated at the time - - instead of precipitously sending so many young Americans to their deaths in battle and occupation.
My message is that the Iraq adventure isn't going well, and clearly isn't going as promised. To say that message "has nothing to do with reality" suggests you inhabit a cave and your "reality" is confined to the line drawing your scrawl on the walls.
You misunderstand me. I was relating the fact that the court jester played the part of buffoon in the royal's presence. The jester's role is the fool/buffoon/damien/devil's advocate in earlier ancient theater (see Falstaff in Shakespeare). The buffoon received the funniest lines but the least amount of respect for his foolishness. It is only now that court jesters and buffoons are afforded riches, honor, and glory. But such are the times we live.
I'm not saying you are a buffoon. I was merely correcting your false assumption that the role of jester was truth teller, though truth can be found in humor/sarcasm/satire. Unfortunately for the jester, if his abilities at buffoonery, or as you seemingly admire as truth telling, if his buffoonery greatly offends his audience, he died the death of a fool.
"By the Lord, I'll be a traitor then, when thou art king." -- Falstaff Henry IV (Act 1)
re. the role of the Jester, please read the first paragraph of the following.
Then here's where we disagree. There is no way a weapons inspection team, no matter how large, could ever uncover WMD in a country the size of Iraq *UNLESS* the host government cooperates. And Saddam was clearly uncooperative with the inspection teams:
He either had WMD or he didn't. If he did, he could have led the inspectors to them on day one. But he didn't do that.
If he didn't have WMD, then he could have provided evidence about where and when he destroyed the weapons he admitted having in the past. He didn't do this either.
Remember, the weapons inspectors were not in Iraq to play hide and seek; they were there to verify what Saddam had and didn't have. And this was 100% dependent on his cooperation.
I have read your long, earnest and, in some flashes, eloquent post through twice and I have concluded that you agree with me in every important and essential point.
BUMP. Good Bochgrave piece.
Shakespeare's clowns are mainly truth tellers? Falstaff spoke the truth always? Deconstructionists, I mean buffoons, have taken over the MLA!
Clown: A comic character originally marked with a rustic quality, much like a hick, bumpkin, or yokel. The nameless "Clown" in Othello (see Shakespeare's Othello) is merely a servant who makes jokes, mostly lewd puns. Later, in performances that call for a high degree of skill, such as a circus and the rodeo, the clown emerged as a character whose INEPTITUDE parodies the virtuosity of the central personages. Nowadays clowns are associated with a certain outlandish style of costume and make-up.--Handbook of Literature
I am mistaken: You are the court jester.
The president himself told Tim Russert on MTP -- and Powell reiterated it this last weekend -- that there aren't the WMDs in Iraq that they had warned about in urging an invasion. If you know more than Bush and Powell, argue with them, not me.
Bush and Powell continue to insist that we made the right decision to use military force depose Saddam Hussein and end his dictatorial regime, and we are doing the right thing by staying the course there and moving Iraq towards democracy.
If you know more than Bush and Powell, argue with them, not me.
"Yes, but there were weapons inspectors who said they couldn't find any, and needed more time."
Some inspectors were finding chemical weapon warheads as late as Jan 2003.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/ogc/apparatus/conclusion.html
That would be funny if it wasn't true. :)
I remember this! And this is not the first time I've seen the LBJ/Bush analogy. But the Iraq situation is so much larger than U.S. politics, than who gets to be the next U.S. president, etc. It's too bad that more people aren't aware of that.
One doesn't have to be an isolationist to have opposed waging a preemptive war on Iraq at a time when we should have been concentrating on Al Qaeda. One doesn't have to be an isolationist to have a distaste for preemptive war, period. But most on this board don't know what conservatism was, say, before the years of Pat Buchanan. Churchillbuff, on the other hand, obviously does. And he's right.
Do you feel the love?
Before you take it upon yourself to put the rest of us in "our place",it would behooved you to consider the fact that you don't know WHO you're responding to.You don't understand the WoT at all,and obviously,the logic of our going into Iraq escapes you completely. THIS IS PART AND PARCEL OF GOING AFTER AL QAEDA AND ITS TENTICLES.
Yes, I have to admit it's fun getting under the skin of folks like you -- people who don't want to be reminded there are other points of view! Have a great day!
Since you'd rather get your information about historical facts from fiction,I suggest you go see/read/listen to Gilbert and Sullivan's "YOMAN OF THE GUARD",which deals with the life of a jester;in detail. The jester's name is Jack Point,BTW...in case you have trouble figuring out which one you should be paying attention to.
Unlike jesters,buffoons come from early Italian and French theatre,i.e. the Comedia del Arte and the even earlier characters in Ancient Greek and Roman plays and were a way for the playwrite to give "voice" to matters that couldn't be interjected by other characters.It's a devices,NOT an authentic representation of actual life.Sort of like the ancient playwrites' use of the deus ex machina.
Now,if you would care for a book list,fiction AND historical FACTUAL,nonfiction,on the role of jesters,dwarves,etc.,in the courts of Europe,I'll give you one.It's help you greatly. :-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.